<p>Those rules sound ok to me. I prefer them to Ian's proposal because they're more similar to what merging the revision will produce. </p>
<p>I think the only change is in how modified files are handled but it's clearer to describe the final state, as you did, not the delta.</p>
<p>Deletion of unclean directories could be better to but that can be done separately and anyhow falls under "like revert".</p>
<p>Maybe file a bug to record the apparent consensus? </p>
<p><blockquote type="cite">On Jul 16, 2009 1:12 PM, "Robert Collins" <<a href="mailto:robertc@robertcollins.net">robertc@robertcollins.net</a>> wrote:<br><br>I'll accept anything that works.<br>
<br>
However, 'rm' seems to be a trigger point in UI design - its been around<br>
a few times because everyone wants it to do what they usually do :).<br>
<br>
Here's an alternative simpler to explain version:<br>
'bzr rm foo' will make unversion and delete foo, making backups with the<br>
same rules 'bzr revert' uses.<br>
'bzr rm foo --keep' will not make backups and will only unversion.<br>
<br>
-Rob<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></p>